tv [untitled] October 22, 2010 3:30pm-4:00pm PST
state bar of california versus the apartment building inspection. the property is at 120 howard street. this is protesting issuance to broadway partners a permit to alter a building. the hearing was held in closed session last week. this is for further consideration. the time was to allow for pellets to review the data. >> we are joined again this evening by a court reporter. times assuming that the same request is made that this transfer of beating to the official record and the same terms are in place regarding giving copies. in order to make that happen, we would make a motion. >> on that motion --
>>." >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 5-0. >> please proceed. >> good evening. i represent the state bar. i wanted to tell you in addition to the news about the giants, we appear to have agreement. i want to thank you for the continuous that he granted last week because it turns out to have been the right thing at the very useful. we have an agreed statement that i would like to read to you.
pursuant to the instructions that you gave us last week, the permit holders budget, the engineering consultant has met with -- over the weekend to try to resolve the issues that were raised in the hearing last week. as a result of those discussions, meetings, so forth, the parties have agreed that certain modifications should be made to the building permit which is -- to the building permit. essentially, both the appellant
and permit holder are requesting that you uphold the permit on the condition that the permit holder modify the method of detachment on each column on flores 3-8 on the existing building and there is a detail which is attached to the condition. the permit holder will modify the structural plans in accordance with those conditions and apply those to the problem of building inspection to incorporate the attached detail. >> after consultation -- after consultation, we are asking you to uphold the appeal with the agreed conditions. you can verify that.
what i would like to do is to hand out the condition if you would receive it so you can see what we are proposing to do. we have a whole bunch of copies that are provided. while you are doing that, if i could just put this on the screen. he will see that what we have here is a detail which provides cuts between the vertical column which will allow the vertical column to move further in the event of an earthquake. in any event, i don't know that you need to spend a lot of time
on the engineering. they have now reached agreement. with this, i think that we are through with this issue. i think you very much for the continuance and enabling us to address this. >> thank you. >> good evening. i would like to thank you all for your assistance in this process and all of the engineers and fault. we concur with the proposed resolution to uphold the permit with the condition that has been handed over to you. since the last hearing, the engineers met amongst themselves and i understand that
they were instructed to discuss amongst themselves. it has always been part of the plan to separate this bill and we have made commitments to the state bar and they submitted their appeal and we have made a commitment here last week to you and as well as providing them a copy of the plan to modify the method of separation and we are happy that that is satisfactory to the bar and we hope that it will be satisfactory as well. we have no objections to this. i respectfully request that tonight you uphold the permit pursuant to what has been submitted by the state bar.
permit with the revised plan. >> grant the appeal, modify the permit according to the conditions. >> excuse me, i thought it was a motion to grant the appeal. >> this is granting the appeal. whenever there are conditions on a permit, you are granting the appeal. >> but you said to support the permit. >> the permit will still be issued in a modified form. >> ok. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the permit is upheld with those conditions. >> thank you.
>> please call item number 6. >> calling item number six, appeal number v10-075, kenney verses a zoning administrator. this is protesting the granting on july 1st, 2010, to pravin patel to a rear yard variants. there was time given to gather information pursuant to the board review. >> i would suggest we give each party three minutes to update the board on the documents they have submitted.
>> i am the appellant. i am here to ask that you appeal the variance. hardship cannot be claim when it was credit by the property owner. my husband and i need this decision to pursue civil legal action against mr. patel. he initially built this without a permit to. the work was stopped and he was given the opportunity to apply for a variance after the construction but he chose to falsify his 311, hiding his intentions and robbing us of due process. he took advantage of the planning department oversight.
he took an advantage of the mistakes of a 20-rolled document which stated he did not have to notify his never said he was raising his roof. he knew all along that he was doing the wrong thing. he used his connections with the building inspection department to further his intentions. mr. rough trail took a blind eye to his overextension. even to this day, he is helping him to avoid compliance. the description of the initial three love and stated that the building which go no further than 66 feet when in fact it went up 75 feet.
>> was there a decision on what the original back line was? am i totally confused? >> this was not quite my understanding. there was an issue with the differ notices that were issued. >> then the hardship issue and all of that. the reason was to try to establish what the rearmost line that they were using in order to grant the variance was.
>> this is going out into the rear yard. >> we are determining whether or not sufficient and correct information had been provided when the variants had been granted. >> of belief that there is correct information and the variance. >> if i might add the following, we are of little bit confused as far as what we were looking for. it is not clear from the aerial photos where the existing rear wall lies, not the new or one that shows the addition. where that was in relationship
compared to the back and the front. inadequate information was provided. i thought that some proof would be offered that out of the original dado was inaccurate or by the other side, it was accurate. >> ok. let me review some of the materials. >> maybe someone else out here has a different feeling and they can disabuse me of my feelings about this.
>> hopefully, i can make this a little bit more clear. let me put something on the overhead real quick. going out to the site, this is the rear building we are talking about. this one down here has not changed, the foundation has remained the same. it is kind of irrelevant, because the art kind of starts here -- yard starts here. it is this portion here. this rear building is not really as pertinent to this case. it is really the measurement here. >> that is true. but the appellant or someone had raised the idea that that will -- wall is ground zero and had
been pushed out. we wanted some proof that that was the case. then, the variance is greater than the foot and a half of what ever that dimension was or is. >> again, the foot and a half azov of that second story addition. -- is off of that second story addition. the premise on the existence of the underlying floor. >> that was my memory. let me back up one step. is the lower floor rear wall
line within the rear yard? >> no, it is in the visible area. it was up to the rear yard. it was for the second story. when we are talking about the rear wall, it was always in the billable area -- buildable area. commissioner garcia: for some reason, multiple members looked at this differently. >> of the appellant raises the issue of invalid hardship because it is a hardship created by the owner. let's remember that for a second, forget about for a
second. that would mean that they would have to get a variance in the first place. that is my memory of the case. >> and administrative variants? >> when it is within those limits or those parameters, it is granted automatically because it is considered cannot be that great. -- to not be that great. >> they did not apply for the administrative variance. >> the planning department shows -- chose not to apply that. it was created by the fact that the permit holder did things without a permit. which greatly muddied these waters.
>> they are trying to legalize illegal construction. the planning department does not look at that favorably at all. in this particular block, there are lots of encroachments. there is a very significant setback of over 20 feet. >> i am confused. i am looking at the old -- i don't know when they are from. it looks like if your looking from front to back, it is 62 feet. looking at the 2009 measurement is 66 feet.